Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Matt

[video] Peter Attia talks about CR, longevity drugs, exercise, and more

Recommended Posts

Good chat between Joe and Peter Attia.

 

It's still live, but so far it's pretty good. :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you're interested in long distance ocean swimming, shooting guns and arrows, animals and pets, I'd suggest skipping the first 50 minutes or so. After that it still meanders of course, but there are health-related tidbits here and there. The most interesting bit (to me) was his opinion that rapamycin is the most exciting drug for longevity and his opinion that as far as dosing for humans, he feels the "sweet spot" is between 2mg-6mg dose every 5-7 days (not daily).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you're interested in long distance ocean swimming, shooting guns and arrows, animals and pets, I'd suggest skipping the first 50 minutes or so. After that it still meanders of course, but there are health-related tidbits here and there. The most interesting bit (to me) was his opinion that rapamycin is the most exciting drug for longevity and his opinion that as far as dosing for humans, he feels the "sweet spot" is between 2mg-6mg dose every 5-7 days (not daily).

 

Thanks for the excerpt Tom, yes, it permeates from all Attia's podcasts that Rapa is a very promising drug for those with an high risk appetite. He's surely prescribing it to some of his clients, probably he's taking some himself.

 

I remember Dr. Green starting from a minimum of 2 mg every 10 days and ending up 3 to 6 mg per week, so Attia's dosage is compatible with Dr. Green dosage.

 

 

 

 

Dr. Attia is a popular biohacker, so it makes sense that he's experimenting Rapa personally. I definitely like the technical, engineering slant he gives to his talks.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the outsiders who may read this, rapamycin is strongly disadvised for its possible collateral effects by some eminent researchers such as Valter Longo.

 

Effects, due to excessive mTOR dampening,  may include mouth ulcers, diabetes, high colesterol, cataract, testicle atrophy. Self-administration may be dangerous. We have discussed this but other drugs are usually needed together with Rapa to constrast its detrimental effects. Again, that's a drug for people under strict medical supervision or elder people who have some condition.

 

Younger, healthy people, must have a large risk appetite to take it.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is that we simply don't have enough data on humans and rapa. There are very few releavant studies. We can't be sure that what pertains to dogs or rats/mice will be applicable to humans. What about optimum dosage? Unknown. I also suspect that rapa may have to be taken with some other drugs to enhance its effects or combat undesirable side effects - metformin is one sometimes mentioned. It's super early in the process. That said, those of us who are willing to risk, at some point may have to give it a try before we're too old for it to matter. YMMV, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you're interested in long distance ocean swimming, shooting guns and arrows, animals and pets, I'd suggest skipping the first 50 minutes or so. After that it still meanders of course, but there are health-related tidbits here and there. The most interesting bit (to me) was his opinion that rapamycin is the most exciting drug for longevity and his opinion that as far as dosing for humans, he feels the "sweet spot" is between 2mg-6mg dose every 5-7 days (not daily).

 

Thanks for the heads up, I took your advice and listened to this while gardening and I skipped the initial chatter.  I found it worthwhile since I wasn't that invested in it.  Rhonda Patrick did a better podcast with him 2 years ago and I would love to hear him interviewed with her degree of focus with respect to what he has been doing and learning for the past 2 years as a doctor working on healthspan and longevity.

 

As for Rapamycin I found it interesting that he thinks it may be most useful for those unable to fast.  Which implies those of us able to fast should be testing approaches to fasting to see what works best for ourselves.  Also found it interesting that he has gone to often eating one meal a day despite being unconvinced of the hype.  But the highlight for me was the discussion on doping and in particular exogenous growth hormone.  This was the first time I've heard someone say it on balance isn't that detrimental and perhaps a net positive for longevity in some cases.  Despite the notorious examples of heavy abuse and early demise, his opinion is the use by athletes has been widespread and the risks such as cancer and heart failure appear overblown.  Myself, with a genetic muscle wasting disease, to improve body composition I've been focused on maximizing endogenous GH/IGF1 especially during weight loss phases where I can now mostly sustain my blood glucose in what I'm finding to be a sweet spot of 65-70 mg/dl except for exercise and heat shock induced spikes.  If most of those injecting GH aren't significantly impacting their longevity it increases my confidence that I can sustain my approach with minimal risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must stand corrected, since Dr. Attia explicitely states that he's not taking Rapa presently. Although he says his intention is to be sort of a guinea pig, since there are yet according to him no conclusive studies on the evidence of its effect on longevity. He's figuring out a suitable strategy to find the optimum dosage, based upon a few markers:

  • Glucose metabolism should become better or at least not worse 
  • Immune function should get better, never worse
  • Autophagy must increase

The drawback of the above is that only glucose metabolism is directly and easily detectable.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also found interesting the physiological comments on various sports, such as fast running, cyclism, swimming.

 

A point I would have never suspected: we know that negative movements, such as the descending part of most lifts, amplify mTOR in the muscle cells. Attia says tearing of the actine-myosin structure is the key. It figures out since the mechanoreceptors which govern mTOR activity are extremely activated that way. Now, the positive part of the lift doesn't cause the typical lesions to the actine-myosine system, so people work only the positive part to gain strength without gaining size (without amplifying local mTOR). This has distinct benefits in fast running for example, where the body weight must be lifted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vitamin D: Attia noticed that some people function properly with very different levels of vitamin D. Probably related to ancestry (lower versus higher latitudes). He also tritrates D3 levels with parathyroid hormones to have a clue. I've no idea what that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished the 

 

 

 But the highlight for me was the discussion on doping and in particular exogenous growth hormone.  This was the first time I've heard someone say it on balance isn't that detrimental and perhaps a net positive for longevity in some cases.  Despite the notorious examples of heavy abuse and early demise, his opinion is the use by athletes has been widespread and the risks such as cancer and heart failure appear overblown.  Myself, with a genetic muscle wasting disease, to improve body composition I've been focused on maximizing endogenous GH/IGF1 especially during weight loss phases where I can now mostly sustain my blood glucose in what I'm finding to be a sweet spot of 65-70 mg/dl except for exercise and heat shock induced spikes.  If most of those injecting GH aren't significantly impacting their longevity it increases my confidence that I can sustain my approach with minimal risk.

 

 

Todd, as I understood it,  it seems he doesn't say exactly that the athletes who have subjected themselves to obscene doses of GH did not significantly impact their longevity. He says there is no evidence for a very  high cancer mortality in that group.

 

From his reasoning, and it's too bad that his plots have not been shown, GH/IGF1 behaves like alcohol: there is an increase in mortality for some patologies (cancer) and a 'monotonic decrease' for other risks such as alzheimer and CVD. Probably, it's good also for the neurological part of muscular strength and of course it's one of the signals which upregulate mTOR in muscle tissue (and everywhere else).

 

Your case is sure very specific though . But maybe we should talk dosages and optimums. We have seen what happens to people abusing GH like Rich Piana: extreme proliferation and growth, beyond muscles: bones, organs, joints, even intestines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize Peter Attia started his own podcast. It's one of the very few which do not advertise any products, that's a really good feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not a fan of Peter Attia's recreational pursuits such as auto racing and bow hunting I appreciate his attitude with respect to longevity, health & nutrition and the science behind them.  He strikes me as rather careful to not overstate evidence, rarely speaks in absolutes, doesn't inappropriately use the word "prove" and appears to keep an open mind and remain flexible in his thinking.  And I like that he does a lot of self experimentation and appears to have cultivated a network of friends that includes a lot of other self experimenters.  I'm increasingly more interested in the results of my personal self experimentation than the results of experiments on mice leading unnatural lives in cages being fed highly processed "foods".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: mice - and animals in general - I think, as I keep repeating, that they are almost wholly to be dismissed. The research rarely translates directly into humans - how could it, when you are dealing with very different physiologies? Such research in animals is of interest to scientists who can in this way find pointers as to possibly fruitful research avenues in humans... but direct human application - absolutely not.

 

That is why the moment I detect "in rodents [or whatever animal]" in a paper or article, I immediately stop reading. It saves me tons of time and energy. It is a very good heuristic. Life is short, I save my interest in research only for results that may be relevant to my health, and that means results in humans, and *only* humans. There are thousands upon thousands of studies - impossible to read them all. If you value your time, you focus only on the relevant ones. Personally I have zero curiosity about what effects X, Y, or Z has on mice, rats, flies, yeast, worms etc. - even IF some effect were directly translatable to humans, there is no way of knowing when that happens - when exactly "in this particular, and rare case, what we found in flies is exactly the same as in humans" - and since there is no way of knowing, there is no point in spending time pondering it. 

 

Bottom line - my motto: animal research - 0% relevance (same goes for "in vitro" "computer model" etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×